Perhaps the most annoying (and counterproductive) thing about the most active advocates of state recognition of same-sex marriage is their tendency to paint all those who support the traditional definition of marriage with a broad brush. They define them as “haters,” with Cindy McCain apparently joining their ranks by posing for a picture with duct tape on her mouth and a “No H8″ tattoo on her cheek (or agreeing to have said accessories photoshopped in).

As if someone somewhere is preventing her from speaking out on gay marriage. Yet, this very image is the inversion of reality. If someone speaks out in favor of gay marriage, they instantly earn the accolades of the PC powers that be and are often heralded for their courage. But, if they dare challenge the politically correct view on this controversial topic, they are frequently branded as haters and their livelihoods threatened.

Shouldn’t they want to hear their arguments so they can better challenge them in the court of public opinion? But instead, they seek to ostracize them, punishing them for their point of view. Via Glenn, we learn further details of this “new blacklist,” no, not against advocates of same-ex marriage, but against those of traditional marriage:

A $26,000 contribution to the initiative that banned same-sex marriage in California appears to have cost a 96-year-old former Mormon temple president his seat on the board that oversees Oakland’s historic Paramount Theatre.

Now, if this Mormon used his position on said board to advocate traditional marriage, the City Elders of Oakland would have a point, but if he happens to hold the view he does, while attending, without prejudice, to his duties on the board, then there is no problem. Instead of punishing such an individual for his position on gay marriage, they should learn to counter, in a civil manner, his argument.

One reason, I believe, we’ve been losing these battles in popular referendum after popular referendum, in initiative battle after initiative battle, is the failure of those advocating this social change to argue their case. Instead, it often appears they spend the better part of their time demonizing those who hold a politically incorrect opinion.

And while they accuse their adversaries of hatred, they’re manifesting an even more bitter form of animus in their attitude toward their adversaries. The real haters are not those they accuse, but those leveling the accusation.

They need to let go of their hate and open their hearts to their opponents so they can, in a responsible manner, counter their arguments.

As an opponent of gay marriage, I accept the debate for gay marriage, but when the whole equal rights stuff comes flying I get really annoyed. WesternCiv has the exact same equal marriage rights my straight (str8) self has.

As for Cindy and her H8 tatoo, she can stick it on her nether cheek and sit on it.

Shouldn’t they want to hear their arguments so they can better challenge them in the court of public opinion? …they should learn to counter, in a civil manner, his argument….so they can, in a responsible manner, counter their arguments.

By the way, I completely agree with you that it is wrong for pro-gay marriage supporters to simply ignore people and arguments who disagree with them, and even more wrong to demonize them. It certainly doesn’t engender support for their cause, does it? And politically its proven to be another loser. Which is rather my point.

I have so many issues with those, including Cinday McCain, who pose in these rhetorical and visual stunts, but to straight America who feels that somehow they need to speak for me, you don’t! I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself and I happen to believe in traditional marriage.

If they really want to fight for homosexuals to experience freedom, I suggest they take their voices to Uganda, Iran, Iraq, and other countries where Sharia Law executes homosexuals. That would be a noble cause, the cause they fight here is asinine.

Cindy McCain is a counterproductive force in her (apparent) efforts to push the GOP (and the country as a whole) toward greater acceptance of gay marriage. Contrast her with Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is not shy to share his views on the issue, but he manages to not insult half of America while doing it. His method is positive, encouraging rather than shaming. He highlights the cause itself; she highlights those who oppose it. Her Perez Hilton methods do more to inspire opposition to gay marriage than anything Jim Dobson could ever come up with. It’s a shame, too, because I have pretty much admired her up to this point. And I won’t stop admiring her for her other traits (not that I spend much time caring about her one way or another). But here she’s embarrassing herself and the cause she wishes to support. (Maybe she really is a hardcore opponent of gay marriage and thinks this is the best way to motivate more people to oppose gay marriage.)

People need to learn not to let their passion get the better of them. Both conservatives and liberals often hurt their causes by trying to insult and shame people on the other side. We all want people on the other side to be open-minded; it is, of course, the only way one can come over to our side, and we need people to come over to our side if we want our beliefs to win out in a democratic society. I’ve changed my opinion about a number of things throughout my life, but I can’t think of any time an insult inspired me to change my opinion to that of the insulter. It’s tempting to insult people when one is passionate and thinks up something clever, not just forcefully pointing out how one believes them to be wrong but questioning their intelligence and goodness, but anyone dedicated to winning hearts and minds ought to resist such temptations.

By the way, given that a certain presidential candidate once said, “As I did in my home state of Arizona, I support the effort in California to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” does Cindy think she is married to a H8R?

Why do you refer to the Prop8 people as advocates of traditional marriage? That is an inaccurate description. If you need, for some strange reason, to obscure the fact that they are, quite simply, anti-gay marriage, and you need, for reasons I cannot fathom, to use the term “traditional marriage” to describe them, then you should at least do so accurately – call them advocates of “traditional marriage only”, or “enemies of anything but traditional marriage”.

There are, no doubt, plenty of gay people and gay and straight supporters of gay marriage who sincerely wish infinite joy and happiness for straight couples as they form and sustain traditional marriages. We are, also, advocates for traditional marriage. Its just that that is not the only thing we advocate for – we sincerely wish infinite joy and happiness for gay couples as they form and sustain non-traditional marriages.

So please, don’t use a label for the gay marriage opponents that would also apply to many gay marriage supporters. The distinction between the two sides is not whether or not we support traditional marriage, its whether or not we would allow gay marriage.

The column is pretty tepid in its support of Hoopes, but the comments section is truly UNBELIEVABLE. I didn’t read all 1300+ comments, but I browsed several pages of them and I would estimate that 97% were essentially: so what?; fu*k that evil bigot; Mormons and their religious H8 don’t belong in CA; he helped take away our civil rights so he deserves whatever he gets; he supports homophobia, enough said; etc. Here’s one I found particularly moronic:

“This is politics. He needs to put his big boy pants on and not whine. Voting on a issue is a private matter and we all get to have our opinion heard via the ballot box. But actively contributing to a cause shows his bias and that is ok, he just needs to have the courage of his convictions. It’s his right to contribute to the cause of his choice and it’s also the voters rights to exert pressure on officials to not make innappropriate appointments.”

The few comments that bring up the First Amendment are snidely ridiculed and Hoopes’ free speech rights are summarily and cavalierly dismissed as inconsequential. It’s remarkable. The gay left is so self-righteously indignant about being victimized, oppressed, and discriminated against, but they never fail to confirm that they are fine with hatred and discrimination as long as they get to be the oppressors.

#8: Tano you have no right to tell other people how to express themselves or what terms they can and can’t use in order to comply with your thought police handbook. What is it about insufferable liberals that one day they just wake up and suddenly believe that this is something that they get to do–scold others for the words they use and inform them of alternative terms and expressions that are to be used in the future? Seriously, what is that? Tano, you spell “blatantly” “blatently” and “apparently” “apperently” for Christ’s sake! Who the fu*k are you to tell people what they can and can’t say?

Just look at the liberal team-killing f*cktard meltdown over the SCOTUS decision. FOUR liberal justices would support banning books. That should scare the hell out of people. Instead we have libs essentially telling the whole country that they’re the only ones allowed freedom of speech.

I’ve changed my opinion about a number of things throughout my life, but I can’t think of any time an insult inspired me to change my opinion to that of the insulter. It’s tempting to insult people when one is passionate and thinks up something clever, not just forcefully pointing out how one believes them to be wrong but questioning their intelligence and goodness, but anyone dedicated to winning hearts and minds ought to resist such temptations.

chad, great points.

Just to play devil’s advocate – aren’t there certain people in the world whose intelligence and goodness should be questioned? I get to a point where I am fed up. The cases where the other person is so plainly idiotic and/or malevolent, that I couldn’t care less if I’m persuading them; I’m just telling the truth, and it’s their problem what to do with it.

For example, I refuse to credit the late Senator Kennedy had good motives. I think his basic motivation was that he liked ruling people. Or, if he couldn’t do it himself, then knowing that others were ruled by people like him. Therefore his answer to every problem was always, always to extend government power. That is the essence of fascism, or the fascist impulse.

Likewise with Tano on this blog, who is one of the most intellectually dishonest people I’ve ever and who recently confessed his true opinion that America should have “an ever expanding government”. I’m not out to win him to my views. For one thing it’ll never happen. For another thing I don’t want to fight beside him; I don’t want him on my side.

So, there’s all that. But for the vast majority of people who mean well basically, or in part, and who have been raised on left-wing dogma and are barely willing to question it: yes, friendship or friendliness is the best approach. Someone told me once, always treat your opponents as friends because it will make it easier for them to come to your viewpoint. Again, my modification or partial acceptance of that is to allow for the cases when, no, I actually don’t ever want to be friends with that particular person or win them over.

ILC, I agree with you about Sen. Kennedy. There are a bunch of people, both in politics and outside of politics, whose ideas and values are so irreconcilable with our own that trying to change their minds is pointless. I still think insults directed toward them should be avoided, but more for the sake of convincing a third party rather than those people so far over on the other side. Even so, there are obviously times in politics when insults and attacks on another person’s character (rather than just their ideas) pays off politically. It’s just bizarre though in Cindy McCain’s case, given that the ones she’s insulting are the very ones she is ostensibly trying to convince.

As someone who is at best ambivalent about gay marriage, I do agree somewhat with Tano’s complaint about the way gay marriage opponents view gay marriage supporters as against traditional marriage. I do believe that there are good reasons to oppose government-recognized gay marriage, and I would still believe that even if I conclude that gay marriage is something I should completely support. But I still see Tano’s point.

On more than one occasion, I have exposed Tano’s habit of defining perfectly good words in a pattern to suit his argument. He has a narrow definition of welfare and his effort to interchange “equal” and “equality” was a masterpiece of equivocation.

Now he presumes to lecture Dan on the term “traditional marriage.” Typical lib who can not win except by censoring the opposition through imposing political correctness.

Tano, wed your soul mate. I could not care less. What is it you hope to gain as a result? I know the answer, but you are too cowardly to say it. You want to require court ordered respect.

A specious and gratuitous claim. A gay man marrying a hetero woman
is no more psycho-physically-spiritually authentic than your marrying a man.

#16 “What is it you hope to gain as a result (of legal gay marriage)?
… You want to require court ordered respect.

No, for respectablity we could go to any of the churches who witness gay marriage.
Achieving legal same-gender marriage has to do with achieving equal access to
the 1000+ legal benefits and responsibilities now associated with marriage.

Get off your silly emotional theme and get to the point. You want gay marriage, but you want to whine about equal rights. It is not about equal rights, it is about opening the sanctions of marriage at least wide enough to let gays in or wide open to allow a lonely sheepherder to have a “psycho-physically-spiritually authentic” marriage with his beloved ewe.

As for any “specious and gratuitous claim” on my part, I stand uncorrected. You do not want marriage as it exists, but you are not denied marriage as it exists.

Now, if you dare, paint a compelling picture of how society as a whole will be better served by opening marriage just enough to let gays marry. And then paint a compelling picture as to why marriage should not be opened to all the other possibilities of “psycho-physically-spiritually authentic ” combinations.

WesternCiv, why don’t you focus on what’s good about gay marriage for other people? I.e., for the rest of society?

State-licensed marriage is a hybrid of two components. There is the commitment of the 2 people to care for each other. But it’s not just between the two people. Third parties are affected, so it’s a compact with the rest of society. The rest of society benefits when 2 unrelated people settle down and restrain themselves sexually by channeling their sexual and other energies into the stable life and stable family that they are going to build together. The benefits are a privilege, not a right. If you really want access to them, why don’t you focus your efforts on explaining how gays and lesbians are worthy of them, or at the very least, how it would behoove society to draw gays and lesbians into traditional marriage culture?

I’ve made no secret of my longtime support for gay marriage on this blog and, from certain quarters, I have taken stick for it. All in a day’s work. But I see heliotrope’s point. There are gay marriage supporters out there, I am ashamed to say, who want the benefits as you said – Without understanding why the benefits are for; without understanding why the institution of State-licensed marriage exists. Those would be the gay marriage supporters who want “benefits” without having to live up to them; who, in fact, merely want to win some kind of cultural revenge, or as heliotrope put it, who “want… court ordered respect.”

“I have exposed Tano’s habit of defining perfectly good words in a pattern to suit his argument. He has a narrow definition of welfare”

No, I have a normal definition of “welfare”. You seem to think that insurance (such as SS) is a form of welfare.

“and his effort to interchange “equal” and “equality” was a masterpiece of equivocation.’

??? Equality is the status achieved by those who are treated equally. Once again, it is you who are playing the semantic games. In both these examples – you are trying to earn a less malevolent reputation for your nasty ideology by redefining terms. Oppose SS because it is welfare. Oppose “equality” because hey, its not really like being against equal treatment…

“Now he presumes to lecture Dan on the term “traditional marriage.” ”

???Huh?
I am not arguing with anyone over what “traditional marriage” means. We all know what it refers to in this context – heterosexual marriage.

What I am objecting to is Dan’s implied claim that supporters of gay marriage are somehow NOT supporters of traditional marriage. That is inaccurate. Or as the commenters on this site like to say – its a lie. Most all supporters of gay marriage that I have ever encountered are not anti-marriage. They support gay marriage precisely because they admire and respect the institution of marriage. They are fully supporters of traditional marriage AND gay marriage.

This is not a semantic dispute about the meaning of traditional marriage. It is a plea for an honest characterization of the position held by the people that he is discussing.

I’d suggest that the primary reason for the “Prop H8″ rhetoric is not so much to hurt or embarrass SSM opponents by implying that they’re hateful people (though that certainly may be a secondary effect), but rather to taint the Civil Union option by associating it in the public mind with “HOMOPHOBIA!!!”.

Repeat: The “NOH8″ stuff is less about making people look bad, and more about getting voters to think that California’s thoroughly comprehensive, “everything but the M-word” Domestic Partnership laws are a moral atrocity like unto apartheid.

After all, you can only get so much mileage out of squawking “Separate is not equal!” over and over like a parrot.

“There are [gay] marriage supporters out there, I am ashamed to say, who want the benefits as you said – Without understanding why the benefits are for; without understanding why the institution of State-licensed marriage exists. Those would be the [gay] marriage supporters who want “benefits” without having to live up to them;”

Hmmm. You see the little brackets I put around the word [gay] in two places in this quote? Reread the quote without including the word “gay”.

What do you propose to do with all the many straight people who fit under such a description? Take away their marriage rights until they fully understand the purpose of the institution and show sufficient motivation to live up to its responsibilites?

What do you propose to do with all the many straight people who fit under such a description? Take away their marriage rights until they fully understand the purpose of the institution and show sufficient motivation to live up to its responsibilites?

Take away their marriage rights? You and what army of Perez Hilton led commandos are going to do that?

Tano: I oppose gay marriage. You have yet to make the slightest case for redefining marriage for your specific wants, while not including the wants of people you apparently look down on and disagree with.

Go marry your soul mate. Are you telling me that you don’t know somebody who will be the Bishop of gay and perform the ceremony? Heck, I’ll do it for a small fee. You can wear the rings and you can parade around as a married couple and who the heck would care enough to try to make you stop. The world is full of poseurs and we get along just fine.

Tell me that you are married and I will say good for you. Why would I be offended if you proffered the notion that you are monogamous in your gaydom?

What exactly comes after the marriage certificate in your alleged mind? Those of you who are hot for hate crimes give yourselves away. You want to wear a badge and carry a big whistle and strut your ideology. Make the people behave according to your dictates. That certificate of marriage is nothing more than a license to badger people who believe you are sinners.

Go get a philosophy, Tano. Your sound-bite babbling is making you look far dumber than you can possibly be.

‘Take away their marriage rights? You and what army of Perez Hilton led commandos are going to do that? ”

What kind of an idiotic comment is that Helio?
What I said was pretty obviously a sarcastic comment meant to point out the absurdity of arguing that gays should not be allowed to marry because many of them are not willing to live up to the responsibilities of marriage. The same can be said of many straight people, and yet they obviously are not going to be denied their right to marry.

The rest of your rant is just that. a babbling rant. You repeatedly claim to be opposed to gay marriage, and yet you also want to pretend that somehow you dont care who I might marry. I don’t think you are being very consistent here (note my diplomatic language).

If you don’t care who I marry, then why do you oppose having the state recognize such a marriage, in the same way it recognizes any traditional marriage?

Your attitude about gay people who marry – “poseurs” – is pretty offensive. But that does seem to be quite the habit around here – ugly mocking denunciation of so many good people who happen to have different opinions from this crowd. Gay people who marry are not poseurs. they are as authentic and sincere as any other couple who love each other and are willing to enter into a permanent committed relationship.

“You want to wear a badge and carry a big whistle and strut your ideology. ”

You are just blabbering nonsense here.

“Make the people behave according to your dictates.”

Huh? Who? Behave how? What on earth are you talking about.
The issue is whether a committed gay couple can have a marriage recognized by the civil authority. Nobody is making you or anyone else behave in any way. There are no dictates operating here. What kind of paranoid nonsense is this?

His relationships are so sad and short lived that he believes that a little piece of paper will guarentee him life long happiness he’s not able to find elesewhere.

News flash, Tano. I’ve two of those little pieces of paper, they’re worth exactly the paper they’re written on.

Note how the little liar can’t even respond to half the arguements posted to him. Note how the little liar is caught again and again in his lies and keeps on posting. The little racist beleives that anyone who doesn’t agree with him 100% is wrong on everything.

I think civil unions, if they are defined in such a manner as to be legally indistinguishable from marriage, is something that has been, and may have to be “settled for” in many places, for a while at least. I think that would only highlight the irrationality of gay-marriage opposition – it seems that in many cases it really just does come down to the “m” word and nothing else. And that is pretty silly.
But we do live in a democracy, and there are a lot of people who take their sweet time in evolving out of silliness. I think that if civil unions were to be ubiquitous, then marriage would follow in due course. Because we have demonstrated over time, as a society, that we do evolve out of silliness and out of a lot of worse attitudes as well. It is probably our greatest strength as a society.

The issue is whether a committed gay couple can have a marriage recognized by the civil authority.

Actually, the issue currently being debated in California is whether the civil authority can use the term “marriage” in legally recognizing the mutual commitment of a gay couple, or if the civil authority is obliged to use a different term like “domestic partnership” on the licenses it issues to same-sex couples.

The gay couple and their friends/family are entirely free to use the word “marriage” if they want; the only legal prohibition here applies to what terminology is allowed to appear on state-issued documents.

Fine Throbert, that is pretty much what I meant by the irrational silliness of much of modern anti-gay marriage thinking. It comes down to the use of a word. Whether that word, which, of course, would be a totally accurate description of the relationship being formalized, shall be allowed to be used.

Those who support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage, are putting us all through this nonsense because they want to “protect” the use of this word by not using it to describe the reality that they are willing to allow.
Go figure….

#33 Livewire said, Poor poor Tano, His relationships are so sad and short lived that he believes that a little piece of paper will guarentee (sic) him life long happiness he’s not able to find elesewhere (sic)… the little liar… the little liar… The little racist…

Such slanderous personal attacks are really ugly and discourage serious discussion.
Looks like pro-gay marriage people aren’t the only ones who can get nasty.

??
Who are you talking to Helio? Do you assume that everyone reading this thread is totally in sync with your thoughts?

What is the meaning of your comment? I am not “butting heads” with traditional marriage. I have great respect for the institution.

Gay people are fully willing and able to have identical relationships as married couples do. There are religious institutions that will consecrate such marriages. Many people (maybe even you?) are fully on board with the civil recognition of the gay relationships and the granting of the full range of rights and responsibilities that go with marriage – only under the name “civil union”. You still have not explained why this is not irrational and downright silly. You are having this fight over the use of a word, not anything real.

Its not like you, or I, or anyone, is willing to accord the legal equivalent of marriage to a shepherd and his ewe. Why we feel this way is besides the point. You ARE willing to accord legal equivalency to gay couples as a civil union. So what is your hangup over the word?

and sorry if I am mischaracterizing your position – I do not remember if you have explicitly advocated full civil unions, but I am guessing you do from the tone of your questions…

#25: “What I am objecting to is Dan’s implied claim that supporters of gay marriage are somehow NOT supporters of traditional marriage. That is inaccurate. Or as the commenters on this site like to say – its a lie. Most all supporters of gay marriage that I have ever encountered are not anti-marriage. They support gay marriage precisely because they admire and respect the institution of marriage. They are fully supporters of traditional marriage AND gay marriage.”

#29: “What do you propose to do with all the many straight people who fit under such a description? Take away their marriage rights until they fully understand the purpose of the institution and show sufficient motivation to live up to its responsibilites?”

Talking Points, go read the 1300+ comments responding to the column criticizing the persecution of Lorenzo Hoopes. The gay left unapologetically cheers when the constitutional rights of others are infringed to punish opposition to their agenda. Their crusade is about validation and revenge—the MSM is not critical of it, so they aren’t even attempting to hide it anymore. Consequently, when religious groups raise concerns that the legalization of same-sex marriage will lead to discrimination lawsuits for their refusal to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies in their churches, it is based entirely on unequivocal evidence from the gay left itself. And spare us the usual defense that it’s unfair to attribute that position to the entire gay community—it’s fair because none of the gays (including you) will criticize or condemn it.

The same can be said of many straight people, and yet they obviously are not going to be denied their right to marry.

Of course. not. That’s because straight people produce children, and marriage is really about ensuring that there is a legal structure in place to catch and manage that which is a natural outgrowth of heterosexual coupling. The problem is that Tano expects society to rationalize his unwillingness to admit the difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and their consequences.

Furthermore, we see how, rather than arguing why gay-sex marriage is a good thing, Tano tries to tear down heterosexuals and argue that, because some heterosexuals behave like he and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters do, that gay-sex marriage should be legalized. That makes it clear that Tano and his fellow gay-sex marriage supporters have no intention of living up to the responsibilities of marriage either, given that they intend to pattern themselves after the worst of heterosexuals.

The ability of churches to set their own rules regarding who they marry is a core Constitutional guarantee, and one that I obviously support.

I admit to not having followed the issue you raise very closely. But I am not sure what Constitutional principle you see at play with Mr. Hoopes.

Neither he nor his church is being required to perform any marriages against their religious principles. As far as I can tell, he has publicly taken a stand on a political issue and is being opposed for a public position by those on the other side of the issue.

The Constitution forbids the government from interfering with a religion, and it forbids the government from restricting free speech. Neither of those things seem to be happening here. The Constitution does not guarantee that anyone who is proposed for a public position must actually receive the appointment. People are nominated or not nominated for public positions all the time, based on their political views. And interest groups, of the left and most certainly on the right, routinely advocate for or against particular nominees for particular positions based on their political views. Am I missing something here?

Employers must be cautious not to discriminate against employees for engaging in political activity. Section 98.6 of the Labor Code protects employees from discrimination for engaging in activities that are protected elsewhere under the Labor Code. Thus, employers must not discriminate against an employee for engaging in lawful off-duty conduct, such as supporting a particular candidate, or because of an employee’s involvement with a particular political party or organization. Employers also cannot discriminate against an employee for holding a political view or participating in off-duty campaign efforts for a political candidate. This could include anything from sporting a bumper sticker in support of a presidential candidate to running the local volunteer campaign headquarters.

In short, this person was denied a public position for which they had expressed interest, were qualified AND IN WHICH THEY WERE ALREADY SERVING based solely on their political views, which were not relevant in any way to the position in question.

Now, Tano, you screamed for these kind of discrimination laws. Go ahead and apply them. Or were you just lying and hypocritical when you pushed them? Do you believe that gay-sex marriage supporters like yourself should be allowed to discriminate in violation of the laws that you yourself demanded?

You are the one who declared that marriage is just a silly “m” word and not worth getting all “silly” over.

You made your bed, now lie in it. You can laugh and cry and stomp your feet over me denying you access to the silly “m” word marriage club, if you like. But why, by your own definition, would you strive so hard to join a silly “m” word club?

Just slap a ring on your finger and tell everyone you are in the club.

Sorry, Tano, but you are hoist on your own petard. If you don’t get it, you have successfully crossed the line between obtuse and dense.

And what, pray tell, do you have against the poor sheep herder and his beloved ewe? Have tried to understand the emotions between a man and his beloved ewe? Or are you diversity deficient?

Thats a pretty lame dodge.
I did NOT say marriage is silly, I said YOU are being silly – granting to gay couples all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage but refusing to use the word.

No, I do not “get” your logic, because there is none there. You are floundering around, unable to address the issues. A good example is your silliness with the shepard.

Let me help you focus here ol’ guy. YOU are willing to grant gay couples legal standing, in a civil union. YOU are NOT willing to grant a shepherd legal standing with his ewe. So YOU are make the same distinction that I am. So this is not an issue.

The issue is why you are unwilling to formally recognize, as marriage, an institution that you are willing to make legally identical to marriage.

Tano, you will just go on forever, but I will give you this to cry about. You have the same right to marry I have. By your inept definition of “equality” you are fighting against your equal status. Neither of us can marry a man, but I do not want to and that is the only difference between us. Your desires do not fit the ages old formula.

I am not fighting to keep you out of marriage. I am determined not to change the formula because no logical reason has been put forward to do so.

You are no different from the sheepherder and his beloved ewe. You just have different wants. You are no different from the radical Islamist who wants Sharia marriage and divorce to be recognized as common law.

I do not have to justify my case. I am in the ruling majority and history, the Judeo-Christian ethic and tradition are on my side.

You are the one who needs to make a persuasive case.

You may choose to understand what I have said or not. The best thing about this site is that many of us who comment understand our differences and handle our challenges and disagreements with humor and good will. On the other hand, more often than not the lib comes tromping in with all sorts of bluster and bombast and sprays us down with all manner of opinions dressed as immutable fact. Like man made global warming.

#43: “The Constitution forbids the government from interfering with a religion, and it forbids the government from restricting free speech. Neither of those things seem to be happening here.”

Tano, of course it all sounds perfectly kosher to you. Since it is a Mormon supporter of Prop. 8 that is being persecuted, you’re inclined to defer completely to the City’s decision-making autonomy. You’ll second guess the decisions, operations, and policies of any business or public entity in the nation before you’ll allow a homosexual to even get his feelings hurt. But here, the City of Oakland contemplating the application of a liberalism litmus test to see if a putative board member is “their kind of people” raises no red flags whatsoever.

If this were happening in another, more conservative, city and the city was considering the rejection of a candidate for an unpaid position on a historical landmark’s board based upon the candidate’s donation to the No On Prop. 8 campaign, you would be howling bloody fu*king murder. If you deny that, you are (as always) a shameless liar. But that’s fine–it just proves the point I made in my original comment. The gay left has ZERO respect for the rights of others and the fact that its agenda includes taking revenge on those that disagree with them is out of the bag.

“The ability of churches to set their own rules regarding who they marry is a core Constitutional guarantee, and one that I obviously support.”

Really? You “obviously” support the rights of churches, Tano? Why on Earth should anyone believe that? Are religious groups supposed to just take your word for it despite your support for how Lorenzo Hoopes is being treated? Actually, they would be wise to assume that you would treat them and their “core Constitutional guarantees” with similar disregard.

“On the other hand, more often than not the lib comes tromping in with all sorts of bluster and bombast…”

I invite you to reread, dispassionately, my comments and the comments of almost all the others who post here, especially the ones addressed to me, and tell me who is full of bluster and bombast.

But I see, bottom line, that you have no answer for me. Your only answer is that you need not give me an answer. You have tradition on your side.

I understand that you hold your views for irrational reasons, and no rational argument can sway you. Exposing the irrationality of your position has no effect either.

Thats ok. Progress in this society has never been made by persuading every last person. I have no animosity toward you – in fact quite a bit of respect. People who support civil unions have already traveled 95% of the way on this issue. They understand the concept of equality (even though some play silly semantic games about the word), they are willing to apply this sense of equality under the law to committed gay couples in civil unions. Their only problem is the silliness of refusing to use the word marriage. Such silliness does not have legs – it will fade from the scene before you do.

I see you have no argument either. You offer no evidence or logic by which we can accept that Mr. Hoopes has had his rights violated. I acknowledged not having followed the case closely, but you give us nothing here. Your only point seems to be some mindless rant about how I, supposedly, would have a different opinion if I had a political ally in such a position. Which is, of course, a claim you have no reason whatsoever to make, which is untrue, and utterly besides the point. The question here is whether Mr. Hoopes has a legal, or even Constitutional right to this position. And i don’t see how that can be.

I realize that you, along with a few other commenters here, like to play the game by which I serve as some stand-in for gay liberals, or all liberals, or all people that you don’t like. I give you the opportunity to launch your spittle-flecked tirades against a convenient target. Its ok – I dont take it personally, and to the extent that it keeps you off the street and reduces your stress levels, maybe it is a good thing. But dont make the mistake of taking yourself too seriously – I certainly don’t.

“Are religious groups supposed to just take your word for it ..”

Religious groups do not have to take my word for it. That is the really cool thing about Constitutional rights – they exist whether or not particular groups or individuals agree with them.

“despite your support for how Lorenzo Hoopes is being treated?”

Once again, where is the Constitutional or even just legal violation that he is suffering?

And yeah, it should be obvious that I support such rights as churches deciding their marriage policies. If you ever had the interest or ability to actually read what I write, and think about it, rather than seeing me as a proxy for all that you hate, and using this blog as your personal venting site, then it would be obvious.

“Once again, where is the Constitutional or even just legal violation that he is suffering?”

As pointed out here He is being discriminated against in violation of California law.

Again this is why Tano’s nothing more than a talking points shill. He wants laws changed because he doesn’t feel he’s equal unless he has a piece of paper that he doesn’t want to qualify for. He wants non-discrimination laws, only if they wouldn’t be used to defend others against him.

What on earth are you talking about. The link you provide is to a discussion of employment law. Mr. Hoopes is not an employee – he was a political appointee, and if he were to continue in the post it would be through another political appointment. There is no requirement to ignore political considerations when making political appointments – quite the contrary, they are always made with political considerations.

Unfortunately, the only thing that makes gay marriage an issue is the of the rights guaranteed by law that comes with a marriage certificate. Pure and simple. Politicians can say all they want about it being a state’s issue, but eventually, it’s going to come to the rights the Federal government affords to married people (nost notably – federal taxes). Equal protection under the law! It seems to me that since states have already started recognizing same sex marriages/civil unions, then the feds should automatically be recognizing them as well. I know many couples who already considered themselves married, some for many decades. Just time for the gov’t to catch up to reality

Do you really think your support of discrimination and bigotry helps the public perception of gays and lesbians, Tano? Do you think your repeated demonstrations of ignorance on these topics and support for proven bigots and corrupt politicos is good for your argument that your sexual orientation makes you think and act the way that you do?

We understand that you act solely out of irrational hatred and a belief in your minority status giving you magical power to ignore right and wrong, but seriously, why don’t you educate yourself on these topics before making such ignorant comments? You do the gay and lesbian community no favors by your constant argument that your sexual orientation requires you to support unethical and bigoted behavior from gays and lesbians.

I read this and wonder how all these people approving of actions against someone for their beliefs feel if the sides are reversed. I suspect I know, as it is the same reason none of these folks are in Iran protesting the hanging of gays there. A coward is often a bully.

It comes down to the use of a word. Whether that word, which, of course, would be a totally accurate description of the relationship being formalized, shall be allowed to be used.

Comment by Tano — January 24, 2010 @ 3:35 pm – January 24, 2010

I take issue with this bit of nonsense. It is not “totally accurate” to describe what I have in the same terms one describes what a man and a woman have. Eons of culture, mythology, symbolism, tradition, and power relationships cannot be glossed over with a turn of phrase. I have something different – not something worse or lower, but something definitely distinct that is not what they have.

Heterosexuals have something that’s theirs and has been for thousands of years. Why can’t we get something that’s ours?

Those who support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage, are putting us all through this nonsense because they want to “protect” the use of this word by not using it to describe the reality that they are willing to allow.
Go figure….

If you reduce the argument to this bit of oversimplified jingoism, you are trapped by its own reality. The gay fighting furiously for the right to be included in the word marriage is wasting his time when he can obtain the legal benefits by accepting the status of civil union.

Plessey v Ferguson provides and interesting model here. The gay would argue that separate but equal is inherently unequal. (Equal rights do not create equality they only permit equality. Policy can still prevail to mitigate the true equality as in separate shower facilities for the sexes at the gym.)

Many gays see marriage as a state policy. Therefore, it is a form of caste system in their view. It discriminates against gays. But if that is the line of reasoning, then one must weigh the list of people being kept out of marriage by the so-called state policy. At what point and by what authority based on the compelling societal interest does the state have the obligation to limit access to marriage?

One way to avoid this endless round of battles over marriage is to create a true state policy in which the state offers a remedy through specific civil union statutes. This is no different than the common law marriage understandings that states have used for many years.

Many gays like to hitch themselves to the history of blacks being barred from marrying whites. Blacks were barred from one man, one woman marriage if the intended spouse was white. (And vice-versa.) This was a race issue, not a marriage issue.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessments. If gay civil unions are permitted by state policy, then all the other marriage wannabes are free to make their case for the same recognition.

The civil union route is to clear up other state policies that would be applied differently if the couple were a recognized “authorized/legal” pair. It is about adjusting the states codes and nothing more. I have no fight with loving gay couples having the same state code benefits and obligations my wife and I share.

So, if one wants to reduce all of this to a silly battle over getting to use the word “marriage” I would suggest that one’s argument is so shallow that it can not be detected.

I always like to visit this site when I need the voice of reason. For the past few weeks, I have had to listen to pro gay activist demonize a man with whom they disagree. I am huge fan of gay marriage but when you start calling a man a homophobe and bigot without taking the time to find out where he stands, sounds exactly like the African-American who calls the cop racist because he wears blue. The argument is old and tired and needs to be retired. I am glad to see that I am not crazy. The debate continues over at A Better Oakland.